I agree with everything Corbett has done thus far minus closing the SCI Greensburg prison. They just made a ton of renovations to that this past few years now they're closing it. I will say this, I think it's up to the DoC secretary whether to close it or not. Lot of good people losing jobs over that including some of my family

mac5155 wrote:I agree with everything Corbett has done thus far minus closing the SCI Greensburg prison. They just made a ton of renovations to that this past few years now they're closing it. I will say this, I think it's up to the DoC secretary whether to close it or not. Lot of good people losing jobs over that including some of my family

Of course you do as it effects you or someone you know. It's like the politicians calling for cuts in spending but they don't want cuts in any projects in their district because those projects are needed.

mac5155 wrote:I agree with everything Corbett has done thus far minus closing the SCI Greensburg prison. They just made a ton of renovations to that this past few years now they're closing it. I will say this, I think it's up to the DoC secretary whether to close it or not. Lot of good people losing jobs over that including some of my family

Of course you do as it effects you or someone you know. It's like the politicians calling for cuts in spending but they don't want cuts in any projects in their district because those projects are needed.

Funny, when I read his quote, the part that jumped out at me was the renovations made followed by closing it, the "someone you know" was secondary.

mac5155 wrote:I agree with everything Corbett has done thus far minus closing the SCI Greensburg prison. They just made a ton of renovations to that this past few years now they're closing it. I will say this, I think it's up to the DoC secretary whether to close it or not. Lot of good people losing jobs over that including some of my family

Of course you do as it effects you or someone you know. It's like the politicians calling for cuts in spending but they don't want cuts in any projects in their district because those projects are needed.

Funny, when I read his quote, the part that jumped out at me was the renovations made followed by closing it, the "someone you know" was secondary.

Well its secondary because he has 25 years in there, and is retired US Army. He has already been offered jobs at other local facilities and his wife is more than capable of supporting their family comfortably.

The have spent tens of millions of dollars in the past few years on upgrades, not maintenance, but upgrades only to close it? There are other institutions that are falling apart and they choose greensburg. Greensburg is structurally sound. But what he doesn't state is that new blocks were added in the 80's, more in the 90's and as recent as a year ago they spent millions of dollars to bring in a modular housing unit to house hundreds of inmates. The whole institution's roof is less that 3 years old. Part was replaced because of mother nature ripping the roof of, but still a new roof was installed. New steam plant. and many more of which i'm not allowed to discuss

I think it's safe to say it's foolish to not only close such a prison but to build a mega prison in Centre County when you don't actually need it. But, thats the way the gubment thinks.

Shyster wrote: if the state-store system makes money, then why shouldn’t the government be running every profitable business?

There are also certain "bylaws" (if thats the right word for it) demanding that there have to be state stores in unprofitable areas to serve certain needs. Its no secret that a number of them lose money. Any normal business concern would shut them down.

There are three liquor stores downtown - two less than a quarter mile from each other on Liberty and one on Smithfield. Are three needed in such a small area?

Shyster wrote: if the state-store system makes money, then why shouldn’t the government be running every profitable business?

There are also certain "bylaws" (if thats the right word for it) demanding that there have to be state stores in unprofitable areas to serve certain needs. Its no secret that a number of them lose money. Any normal business concern would shut them down.

There are three liquor stores downtown - two less than a quarter mile from each other on Liberty and one on Smithfield. Are three needed in such a small area?

There is one in Mt. Pleasant on Main Street, and another in a grocery store plaza. Google maps tells me they are 1.7 miles away from each other.

In addition, he said if it were a private sector company vacating the state, the governor would throw hundreds of thousands of dollars to keep those jobs in Pennsylvania.

IMO, this is a valid statement by Young. Corbett would almost certainly be pushing tax incentives 'to keep 5,000 good paying jobs in this state'.

This sentiment drives me absolutely bonkers.

What if instead of saying "we need to keep 5,000 good paying jobs in the state," we said "we should raise taxes by a little bit so we can pay the 5,000 people that work at liquor stores and make a liquor store salary."

Because those two sentiments are identical. The reason liquor is expensive in this state is because the government chooses to pay the salespeople an above-market salary for their service. Who pays this above-market salary? All those people that buy liquor and pay more than you should have to. So a clerk at Giant Eagle, who doe the exact same thing than a Wine & Spirits clerk, has to pay 5% or so more on her wine because the state decided that a Wine & Spirits clerk deserves more.

Why oh why do we tolerate such blatant transfers of wealth completely untied to the economic justification for wealth transfer when they're presented in this way when we outright revolt when they are presented through the IRS Form 1040? At least, income taxes are tied to income, and it makes sense that those that make more should subsidize those that make less (at least to some of us). It, however, makes no sense why those that buy liquor should subsidize those that make a clerk's salary.

We eliminate 5,000 jobs, 4,500 new jobs in private liquor stores are created, we all save a lot of money, we spend most of that money elsewhere (and desirably save some of it), and create new jobs where we demand them.

TheHammer24 wrote:What if instead of saying "we need to keep 5,000 good paying jobs in the state," we said "we should raise taxes by a little bit so we can pay the 5,000 people that work at liquor stores and make a liquor store salary." Because those two sentiments are identical.

Identical? Not quite. One taxes every resident of the state, the other only those who choose to buy liquor.

TheHammer24 wrote:The reason liquor is expensive in this state is because the government chooses to pay the salespeople an above-market salary for their service. Who pays this above-market salary? All those people that buy liquor and pay more than you should have to. So a clerk at Giant Eagle, who doe the exact same thing than a Wine & Spirits clerk, has to pay 5% or so more on her wine because the state decided that a Wine & Spirits clerk deserves more.

A few dollars more per bottle with some brands actually being less expensive than neighboring states. Your GE clerk argument seems to support the race to the bottom with wages, lowest common denominator for benefits, corporate / shareholder greed that has completely spoiled this country's way of doing business. Personally, I would rather see the profits of any enterprise more evenly split among all those who contribute to the enterprise, rather than concentrated to the top management and paid out to shareholders.

TheHammer24 wrote:Why oh why do we tolerate such blatant transfers of wealth completely untied to the economic justification for wealth transfer when they're presented in this way when we outright revolt when they are presented through the IRS Form 1040? At least, income taxes are tied to income, and it makes sense that those that make more should subsidize those that make less (at least to some of us). It, however, makes no sense why those that buy liquor should subsidize those that make a clerk's salary.

I have absolutely no problem paying my taxes. The rest of this (and the previous section) frankly seems to be rooted in the same jealous, selfish thought that has led to the downfall of the middle class / unions. And yes, I believe those two are intimately connected.

TheHammer24 wrote:We eliminate 5,000 jobs, 4,500 new jobs in private liquor stores are created, we all save a lot of money, we spend most of that money elsewhere (and desirably save some of it), and create new jobs where we demand them.

You really think GE, Walmart or any of those stores will add a single employee if they start selling alcohol? They don't even stock most of the items on their own shelves now. As far as savings, I would be hard pressed to believe there will be much, if any, passed along to consumers.

Shyster wrote: if the state-store system makes money, then why shouldn’t the government be running every profitable business?

There are also certain "bylaws" (if thats the right word for it) demanding that there have to be state stores in unprofitable areas to serve certain needs. Its no secret that a number of them lose money. Any normal business concern would shut them down.

There are three liquor stores downtown - two less than a quarter mile from each other on Liberty and one on Smithfield. Are three needed in such a small area?

You have underestimated the need for colt 45. When that need is filled by one store and one store only then you have my permission to close the other 2 stores.

TheHammer24 wrote:We eliminate 5,000 jobs, 4,500 new jobs in private liquor stores are created, we all save a lot of money, we spend most of that money elsewhere (and desirably save some of it), and create new jobs where we demand them.

I'm pretty ambivalent about this whole debate because I don't drink, but this statement is a laugher. Do you really think tons of private liquor stores are going to pop up when people will be able to buy their booze at WalMart and Sheetz? I'm sure some stores would open, especially in cities, but certainly not enough to create thousands of jobs. And the mini marts and grocery stores won't be hiring anyone, they'll just be pocketing the new found windfall.

Even better. Now we save loads of money, an the point still owns. We get to spend that money on more productive thing---anything other then a direct subsidy (ie, transfer from me to someone I don't know). That money creates new demand, new jobs are created. Even if those jobs vanish, it's better to support those that need it through he tax and transfer system because it avoids distortions is the market---ie, why does the liquor store clerk get the money and why do drinkers pay it?